Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.23 seconds)
Smt. Sony vs The State Bank Of India on 27 January, 2025 cites

Managing Director Ecil Hyderabad Etc. ... vs B. Karunakar Etc. Etc on 1 October, 1993

In ECIL vs. B. Karunakar (supra) and Union of India vs. Y.S. Sadhu (2008) 12 SCC 30, the Supreme Court has held that where the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority is quashed by the Court/Tribunal on some technical ground, the authority must be given an opportunity to conduct the enquiry afresh from the stage where it stood before the alleged vulnerability surfaced. However, for the purposes of holding fresh enquiry, the delinquent is to be reinstated and could be put under suspension. The question of back wages etc., is to be determined by the disciplinary authority in accordance with law after the fresh enquiry is concluded.
Supreme Court of India Cites 64 - Cited by 2043 - Full Document

Union Of India And Ors vs Mohd. Ramzan Khan on 20 November, 1990

15. We have also considered the direction of the learned Single Judge in remanding the matter specifically in the context of of judgment in Union of India vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan; (1991) 1 SCC 588 and the Constitution Bench judgment in ECIL vs. B. Karunakar; (1993) 4 SCC 727 as Patna High Court L.P.A No.589 of 2024 dt.31-01-2025 8/12 also the Chairman -cum- Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. vs. Anant Saha; (2011) 5 SCC
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 668 - R B Misra - Full Document

Roop Singh Negi vs Punjab National Bank & Ors on 19 December, 2008

14. We have also examined the issue with respect to requirement of examination of witness as pointed out in Roop Singh Negi (supra). It may not be an inviolable rule in all domestic proceedings for examination of witnesses which would depend on the facts of each case. However, in the present case, it was required that witnesses on behalf of the Bank were to be examined as the allegation is that there is no land lady in existence. This fact had to be proved, which could not have been done in absence of examination of any witness.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 1059 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Chairman-Cum-M.D.,Coal India Ld.& Ors vs Ananta Saha & Ors on 6 April, 2011

15. We have also considered the direction of the learned Single Judge in remanding the matter specifically in the context of of judgment in Union of India vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan; (1991) 1 SCC 588 and the Constitution Bench judgment in ECIL vs. B. Karunakar; (1993) 4 SCC 727 as Patna High Court L.P.A No.589 of 2024 dt.31-01-2025 8/12 also the Chairman -cum- Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. vs. Anant Saha; (2011) 5 SCC
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 416 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Union Of India vs Y.S.Sadhu.Ex-Inspector on 22 September, 2008

In ECIL vs. B. Karunakar (supra) and Union of India vs. Y.S. Sadhu (2008) 12 SCC 30, the Supreme Court has held that where the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority is quashed by the Court/Tribunal on some technical ground, the authority must be given an opportunity to conduct the enquiry afresh from the stage where it stood before the alleged vulnerability surfaced. However, for the purposes of holding fresh enquiry, the delinquent is to be reinstated and could be put under suspension. The question of back wages etc., is to be determined by the disciplinary authority in accordance with law after the fresh enquiry is concluded.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 144 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1